A proposal to create a non-GPL licensed, open source alternative to the Busybox program has sparked controversy. An allegation was made by Matthew Garrett that the replacement's development is designed to enable GPL violations...

Garrett says that it would do this by allowing embedded systems builders to replace the one piece of software that has been repeatedly and successfully used in court by the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) against companies who have not published or made available the source code of GPL software they have used. Garrett claimed that "You'll be able to violate licenses with impunity" if a company ships the alternative to Busybox, because no kernel copyright holders have "offered to allow the SFC to enforce their copyrights".

This must be some of the strangest and most twisted pieces of logic I've encountered in a long while.

__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.